7 ms·

"There was one women who the dentist went to pull a tooth and he pulled her entire jaw out when he did it," says Blum. "Their legs broke underneath them. Their

"There was one women who the dentist went to pull a tooth and he pulled her entire jaw out when he did it," says Blum. "Their legs broke underneath them. Their spines collapsed." Horrific stuff. I've always found it curious how nonchalant people are with dangerous substances before it's realized how hazardous they can be. My grandfather loaded asbestos into railcars at a factory for 30 years, I still can't quite imagine how he must have felt when he fully realized the dangers it posed.

tectonic 12y ago
And the companies knew that it was dangerous too According to Wikipedia: The U.S. Radium Corporation hired some 70 women to perform various tasks including the handling of radium, while the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs.[1] US Radium had even distributed literature to the medical community describing the “injurious effects” of radium.
- synchronise 12y ago
  And this is why self regulation rarely works in for-profit industries.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    Yes. Moreover, this self regulating-type "utopias" are not just fantasies or tricks from history -- this is reality in some countries that are corrupt, where government regulations exist, but are just never enforced. You go to the market to buy baby formula and you get chalk mixed with water. You buy "organic" but it is laced with chemicals.
  - Normati 12y ago
    Why isn't the threat of legal action a sufficient incentive against this? It might not help to prevent freak accidents but for known health problems like the radium, if the managers are documented to know about it without taking action, then they would spend the rest of their lives at risk of going to prison, or at least the company being fined.
    - rdtsc 12y ago
      Because them knowing about could also be coupled with them knowing that they can defend against such action. Either advised by their legal team based on existing laws or based on how well "written down" the evidence is. In this case for example, it was an iconic case. But each of the Radium Girls didn't really get that great of a deal out of it ($10k in 1920's money). And US Radium Corp didn't exactly crumble after the lawsuit. It functioned for many decades after.
      - simonh 12y ago
        Yep, that's only about $120,000 in today's money.
    - therzathegza 12y ago
      Some companies are willing to that risk and gamble that no one finds out, especially if the legal action in question is cheaper than the fix. :)
    - HCIdivision17 12y ago
      Of all the things I've seen scare people in plants, OSHA wins, hands down. The environmental agencies probably come neatly in second. Fines can be paid, lawsuits settled, but OSHA will come in and lock down your facility and stop production. They're like the nuclear deterrent of plant safety (and while it can be said that stuff still gets by, there is always the omnipresent fear of getting caught, and even that helps raise safety awareness). They have teeth, such that just baring their teeth can be enough to incite action.
    - ceejayoz 12y ago
      Companies can afford giant legal teams that can stretch things out for decades. Horrendously sick people can't afford the lawyers nor the time.
    - pmorici 12y ago
      Suing someone is a huge pain in the butt and costs a lot of money. It's also extra difficult when you are trying to sue someone who knows what they are doing is wrong and is actively trying to cover their tracks and obstruct the case. At the same time there is a concerted effort among corporations to limit their liability through legislation, and via PR campaigns against lawyers and lawsuits.
  - denysonique 12y ago
    Volenti non fit injuria
    - sspiff 12y ago
      Not sure if you're serious, but if you are: "the willing" are often poorly informed or have little choice.
      - maxlybbert 12y ago
        denysonique didn't give enough information about whether the legal doctrine should apply or is a good policy; simply that it often does apply and often shields companies from lawsuits.
  - innguest 12y ago
    You're right, there should have been a regulatory agency that US Radium could bribe or lobby so that they could avoid paying any damages to the victims at all. /s
sumedh 12y ago
> I've always found it curious how nonchalant people are with dangerous substances before it's realized how hazardous they can be. Well, we smoke cigarettes knowing that they are harmful to us.
- psykovsky 12y ago
  And fast-food. Look at all the obesity on the developed countries! And it's not even a case of lack of information, like it used to be.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Smoking rates in the US, Europe, and Australia have fallen tremendously. The peak rates were during the 1950s and 1960s, particularly after WWII. Cigarettes had been heavily promoted through films and popular culture, were included in soldier's rations and kits (paid for by tobacco companies), and pitched via advertising aimed directly at children and appealing to women's sense of independence and self-determination. During which time the tobacco companies were actively concealing the negative health effects and campaigning against not only regulation but simply providing truthful information about tobacco's hazards. Instrumental in much of this was Edward Bernays, the father of the modern Public Relations industry (he coined the term after the word "propaganda" lost its lustre after its use by Germany in WWI). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays The BBC series by excellent documentarian Adam Curtis (I've encountered a few of his other works and writings recently), The Century of the Self covers Bernays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Many of the same methods and techniques were applied to corporate disinformation campaigns against controls over leaded paint, asbestos, ozone, auto safety. Look up GM's attempts to smear Ralph Nader: In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and The New York Times, reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader Naomi Oreskes has drawn the parallels -- in methods, organizations, and often the very individuals -- between corporate disinformation campaigns in the case of tobacco, smoking, acid rain, CFCs and the ozone layer, and global warming, in her book Merchants of Doubt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
Normati 12y ago
When the nature of the hazard is entirely new and it causes no symptoms in the short term, who could imagine it's dangerous? Are we confident that Facebook use won't cause psychological problems as people grow older? That reading endless news stories on the internet won't reduce people's ability to maintain a long train of thought?
- gurkendoktor 12y ago
  > who could imagine it's dangerous There are usually people who do, but they will be labelled anti-progress and anti-science because there is no scientific background for their worries (yet).
  - mason240 12y ago
    Because they are anti-progress and anti-science. For every horrific story of "we didn't know the dangers involved until it was too late," there are dozens of other new technologies that give people "bad feelings" that lead to great advancements. Just imagine if the anti-vaccine hysteria of today was present in the the past. Polio and small pox could still be rampant today. Look at what the anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s - a greater reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricity. Now today we are dealing with unfounded fears of GMOs. You and I can probably comfortably live with higher food prices, but millions around the world can not wait for 30 years of study "just in case." And then you have fearmonging pushed for political reasons, such as this new opposition to building the Keystone pipeline, created to be a political wedge issue. The result? More oil transported by railcar, which uses more energy and causes more oil spills. The rail yard near me now had to expand into swamp on the Mississippi river[1] to accommodate for all the extra oil railcars. [1] http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus-railroad-who-decides.html http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus...
    - pjc50 12y ago
      anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s .. before Chernobyl and Fukushima. I think we need to be careful about claiming the safety of nuclear power in a thread about the dangers of radium.

tectonic 12y ago

And the companies knew that it was dangerous too According to Wikipedia: The U.S. Radium Corporation hired some 70 women to perform various tasks including the handling of radium, while the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs.[1] US Radium had even distributed literature to the medical community describing the “injurious effects” of radium.

synchronise 12y ago
And this is why self regulation rarely works in for-profit industries.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  Yes. Moreover, this self regulating-type "utopias" are not just fantasies or tricks from history -- this is reality in some countries that are corrupt, where government regulations exist, but are just never enforced. You go to the market to buy baby formula and you get chalk mixed with water. You buy "organic" but it is laced with chemicals.
- Normati 12y ago
  Why isn't the threat of legal action a sufficient incentive against this? It might not help to prevent freak accidents but for known health problems like the radium, if the managers are documented to know about it without taking action, then they would spend the rest of their lives at risk of going to prison, or at least the company being fined.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    Because them knowing about could also be coupled with them knowing that they can defend against such action. Either advised by their legal team based on existing laws or based on how well "written down" the evidence is. In this case for example, it was an iconic case. But each of the Radium Girls didn't really get that great of a deal out of it ($10k in 1920's money). And US Radium Corp didn't exactly crumble after the lawsuit. It functioned for many decades after.
    - simonh 12y ago
      Yep, that's only about $120,000 in today's money.
  - therzathegza 12y ago
    Some companies are willing to that risk and gamble that no one finds out, especially if the legal action in question is cheaper than the fix. :)
  - HCIdivision17 12y ago
    Of all the things I've seen scare people in plants, OSHA wins, hands down. The environmental agencies probably come neatly in second. Fines can be paid, lawsuits settled, but OSHA will come in and lock down your facility and stop production. They're like the nuclear deterrent of plant safety (and while it can be said that stuff still gets by, there is always the omnipresent fear of getting caught, and even that helps raise safety awareness). They have teeth, such that just baring their teeth can be enough to incite action.
  - ceejayoz 12y ago
    Companies can afford giant legal teams that can stretch things out for decades. Horrendously sick people can't afford the lawyers nor the time.
  - pmorici 12y ago
    Suing someone is a huge pain in the butt and costs a lot of money. It's also extra difficult when you are trying to sue someone who knows what they are doing is wrong and is actively trying to cover their tracks and obstruct the case. At the same time there is a concerted effort among corporations to limit their liability through legislation, and via PR campaigns against lawyers and lawsuits.
- denysonique 12y ago
  Volenti non fit injuria
  - sspiff 12y ago
    Not sure if you're serious, but if you are: "the willing" are often poorly informed or have little choice.
    - maxlybbert 12y ago
      denysonique didn't give enough information about whether the legal doctrine should apply or is a good policy; simply that it often does apply and often shields companies from lawsuits.
- innguest 12y ago
  You're right, there should have been a regulatory agency that US Radium could bribe or lobby so that they could avoid paying any damages to the victims at all. /s

sumedh 12y ago

> I've always found it curious how nonchalant people are with dangerous substances before it's realized how hazardous they can be. Well, we smoke cigarettes knowing that they are harmful to us.

psykovsky 12y ago
And fast-food. Look at all the obesity on the developed countries! And it's not even a case of lack of information, like it used to be.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Smoking rates in the US, Europe, and Australia have fallen tremendously. The peak rates were during the 1950s and 1960s, particularly after WWII. Cigarettes had been heavily promoted through films and popular culture, were included in soldier's rations and kits (paid for by tobacco companies), and pitched via advertising aimed directly at children and appealing to women's sense of independence and self-determination. During which time the tobacco companies were actively concealing the negative health effects and campaigning against not only regulation but simply providing truthful information about tobacco's hazards. Instrumental in much of this was Edward Bernays, the father of the modern Public Relations industry (he coined the term after the word "propaganda" lost its lustre after its use by Germany in WWI). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays The BBC series by excellent documentarian Adam Curtis (I've encountered a few of his other works and writings recently), The Century of the Self covers Bernays: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self Many of the same methods and techniques were applied to corporate disinformation campaigns against controls over leaded paint, asbestos, ozone, auto safety. Look up GM's attempts to smear Ralph Nader: In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and The New York Times, reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader Naomi Oreskes has drawn the parallels -- in methods, organizations, and often the very individuals -- between corporate disinformation campaigns in the case of tobacco, smoking, acid rain, CFCs and the ozone layer, and global warming, in her book Merchants of Doubt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Normati 12y ago

When the nature of the hazard is entirely new and it causes no symptoms in the short term, who could imagine it's dangerous? Are we confident that Facebook use won't cause psychological problems as people grow older? That reading endless news stories on the internet won't reduce people's ability to maintain a long train of thought?

gurkendoktor 12y ago
> who could imagine it's dangerous There are usually people who do, but they will be labelled anti-progress and anti-science because there is no scientific background for their worries (yet).
- mason240 12y ago
  Because they are anti-progress and anti-science. For every horrific story of "we didn't know the dangers involved until it was too late," there are dozens of other new technologies that give people "bad feelings" that lead to great advancements. Just imagine if the anti-vaccine hysteria of today was present in the the past. Polio and small pox could still be rampant today. Look at what the anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s - a greater reliance on fossil fuels for generating electricity. Now today we are dealing with unfounded fears of GMOs. You and I can probably comfortably live with higher food prices, but millions around the world can not wait for 30 years of study "just in case." And then you have fearmonging pushed for political reasons, such as this new opposition to building the Keystone pipeline, created to be a political wedge issue. The result? More oil transported by railcar, which uses more energy and causes more oil spills. The rail yard near me now had to expand into swamp on the Mississippi river[1] to accommodate for all the extra oil railcars. [1] http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus-railroad-who-decides.html http://therippleeffectmn.blogspot.com/2014/11/wetland-versus...
  - pjc50 12y ago
    anti-nuclear power activists achieved during the 1970s .. before Chernobyl and Fukushima. I think we need to be careful about claiming the safety of nuclear power in a thread about the dangers of radium.